[anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Mar 3 12:48:10 CET 2021
True. If you’re listing only two BLs - one reputable and the other UCEPROTECT.. there are many other public block lists, ok fewer than there were in the 2000s but still .. --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Nuno Vieira via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:01:51 PM To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; Esa Laitinen <esa at laitinen.org> Cc: Nuno Vieira <nuno at hashpower.pt>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget Hi. Let me disagree on this misconcept of "endorsement" or "reference" or "reporting". There are **plenty** blacklists out there. RIPE reports specifically UCEPROTECT and SPAMHAUS. This kind of usage and reference by RIPE empirically supports/endorses/make those as a reference. (or a troll feeded) If ripe community dont feel it that way then, imo they should either: a) add more blacklists checks and not only those (in order to avoid discrimination to other blacklist operators) or b) remove blacklist reports at all, so it keeps a neutral position on this. btw, how many of you already got fresh allocations from RIPE that were blacklisted from some of those, and had challenges to start using those and/or get them scrubbed raise the hand. cheers /nuno On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 12:16 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:13AM +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote: > > This indeed puts the uceprotect in a different category in my > > books. > > Please forget what I wrote earlier in this chain. > > I do have my own opinion about uceprotect (and it's not favourable), > but > we do not need to actually discuss "do we as community like their > service > or not" or "do we endorse it or not". > > The RIPE-Stats-Plugin provides *reporting*, and if someone's IP space > ends > up on a blacklist that is actually used by people, it is useful > information > to be told about it. > > This is why uceprotect is listed there, not because "RIPE endorses > it". > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20210303/e805ccc0/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]